|
As I noted in the last piece of my post, I believe there's value in bitcoin being a store of value. It has proven itself there and is a contender to Gold in that respect. But there's no pretense around gold as having technological uses that require it to have a certain price, or that drive its price due to the technological demand for gold, in a way that people keep claiming for bitcoin tokens. Gold is used in tech applications, but it's not what is generally driving its price. But insofar as you do want to look at gold's uses, it's pretty easy to link them to KPIs as they benefit end-users/consumers/companies in electronics, jewellery, space, medicine/dentistry. The fact the responses so far are all comparing bitcoin to gold or dollars as a store of value, not as a medium of exchange, and not as a token or ledger that's useful for anything else (e.g. a notary function, or an open-source finance platform used by most tech companies to exchange value like the internet protocol or email protocol was for exchange of information), seems to me that crypto is not very interesting anymore for entrepreneurs, technologists, developers, users etc. But rather, that it's just an asset class, one that's highly speculative and volatile vis-a-vis comparisons like gold. Interesting for investors, but not users. Just like gold. * put differently:
The internet protocol is driving just about every digital tech company. From Facebook to Netflix to Google to Apple. Bitcoin was aiming to be the digital money protocol, but it's not driving the financial infrastructure for any companies or end-users apart from those in a speculative sense. And that's okay, if it's just a store of value / asset class like gold, but then it should loose that pretence. |